Posted on 11/20/2023 8:12:15 AM PST by Dacula
With that logic, you can make anyone do anything.
You can force them to get a shot by saying we will tax you at 200% of your income if you don't.
I’m pretty sure that was exactly what some of the jurors came out and stated publicly after the trial ended.
At its core (from a legal standpoint), the individual mandate was considered constitutional because it was implemented no differently than an income tax exemption for (as just one example) charitable contributions or mortgage interest.
LOL. Crazy reasoning. Charitable contributions are voluntary. You get to deduct a portion of your income. Entering into a mortgage is voluntary. You get to deduct a portion of your income. The income tax may be universal but there are ways to adjust the income that gets taxed.
Taxing everyone specifically for not having health insurance is different. The only solution to the tax is to enter into a private contract for health insurance. The Fed Gov imposed a universal penalty on those who don't buy health insurance. It wasn't a tax increase, it was a penalty for noncompliance. The ruling was unconstitutional on its face.
The point you made is exactly why ObamaCare would best be challenged on other grounds. ObamaCare is a bad law and is likely unconstitutional for any number of reasons, but the individual mandate wasn’t the reason why.
It’s still a bad law even though the individual mandate has effectively been removed.
I wouldn't regard juror statements from people who convicted an innocent man as having much credibility.
I may be mistaken, but my recollection from past discussions on this topic is that Chauvin held him down waiting for the EMTs to arrive, but they just took a long time.
This has the ring of truth to it. I cannot conceive of a situation in which a cop would prevent EMTs from rendering assistance to a man in distress.
The juror's statements don't make much sense.
Of course, sometimes real events that actually happened don't make much sense either.
“The holding that Dred Scott remained a slave and was not freed as a consequence of time he spent in a free state, is correct.”
I agree with you on that point.
“I’m pretty sure his statements were just Dicta and not holdings in the ruling.”
He also found that as a slave or ex-slave, there was no Constitutional path to U.S. citizenship. Taney reasoned that an ex-slave could become the citizen of a state, but that did mean that he was a citizen of the United States. It was this finding, that prompted the XIV Amendment. It was the only means available that would give US citizenship to the 4.5 million ex-slaves in the United States.
RE: It doesn’t appear this appeal was based on the fact that Chauvin didn’t kill Floyd, fentanyl did... this one was based on pre-trial publicity.
/////////////////////////////////
I can’t go any higher than top end in my anger over the system of pseudo justice.
We need to be on alert now that the pro-Hamas crowd thinks they are righteous like when they were just anti-Trump, pro-BLM and pro-abortion. They think the Left’s martyrs are all heroes singled out by the white power structure. Like their teacher told them.
Riots, vandalism and soon outright murder of their political opponents are coming. They think they can get away with anything they feel like doing.
Or the fifth. I consider my money to be my private property, and the state should have no right to take it without due process of law.
And since I have segued into this, I know some people who recently received a notice from their city government that they had an inoperable vehicle in their driveway, based on the license tag being expired.
This person thought he would be clever and turned the car around so they couldn't see the tag from the street.
Last week, the city sent a tow truck and had it towed out of his driveway.
How is this not a fifth amendment violation?
I was thinking about doing a post on this topic just to see what other people thought of the issue.
You got it! If you think the Supreme Court cares about him, you, or me you got another think coming.
My recollection is that this is just his own personal opinions which he wrote as dicta, and which had no legal force in the holding.
There were a lot of states that recognized Black people as citizens going all the way back to before 1776.
Taney reasoned that an ex-slave could become the citizen of a state, but that did mean that he was a citizen of the United States.
Yeah, I think he's just flat out incorrect about that. Again, it's his opinion, and not the ruling of the court.
It was this finding, that prompted the XIV Amendment. It was the only means available that would give US citizenship to the 4.5 million ex-slaves in the United States.
Very likely. Even though it was just Taney's opinion, it was better to be safe than sorry.
I only wish they had done a better job writing the 14th amendment. Their earlier drafts were significantly better than what they produced as the final verbiage.
Those who call this Court “Conservative” don’t know what they are talking about. This “Conservative” talk is media bullshit. The members of the media are a gang of American haters and share the Democrat Party’s desire to totally and completely destroy America. Working hand in glove with those who put Biden in Office, Joe Biden, etal. they have almost achieved their goal. One more term of a Democrat in the White House is all it will take to completely and totally destroy the United States of America. Then the crying will begin and the tears will flow freely. To no avail.
We have 3 conservatives on the court Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, AND Kavanaugh was NOT WORTH the fight we had to put him there!! I see Kavanaugh as a frat boy that has his nose so far up Roberts ass he can’t see daylight!! I have to say that Gorsuch has been a HUGE surprise for me, he has turned out to be a very good justice!! I am VERY WORRIED about when Thomas decides to throw in the towel do we have REAL conservative people on the bench ANYWHERE today???
“My recollection is that this is just his own personal opinions which he wrote as dicta, and which had no legal force in the holding.”
In this case your recollection is incorrect. Here is a portion of the findings in the Supreme Courts final opinion.
“4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction in such a suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.
7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of
Page 60 U. S. 394
the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.
8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.”
That's ludicrous on its face. The power to levy taxes is inherent in any form of government. You're suggesting we should have a jury trial for every tax bill that is distributed to U.S. citizens? LOL.
Suppose Congress imposed a tax of $1,000 on every person in the United States -- regardless of income, employment status, or any other consideration.
Would this be a legitimate form of taxation for Congress to impose? I would say it most certainly is. In fact, it's probably better than most taxes paid by Americans these days.
If you are willing to accept that this is a legitimate form of taxation, then the rest is just administrative details. Once Congress has the power to impose a tax, it has the power to legislate exemptions as it sees fit (exempting active-duty military personnel from the $1,000/head tax, for example).
Another way to look at it is to consider a different type of tax exemption: the deduction for mortgage interest. I'll use your own narrative to explain it:
Taxing everyone specifically for not having health insurance owning a home is different. The only solution to the tax is to enter into a private contract for health insurance to buy a home. The Fed Gov imposed a universal penalty on those who don't buy health insurance a home. It wasn't a tax increase, it was a penalty for noncompliance. The ruling was unconstitutional on its face.
How is the mortgage interest deduction any different than the ObamaCare deduction?
Didn’t Billy Graham witness to LBJ?
Cowards everywhere in the USA of 2023!
The only thing the American people don't like about ObamaCare is the name, and paying for it.
When the hospital system collapses, ObamaCare adds a degree of complexity to what will have to be done, but it will be nationalization in all but name. Wilbur Mills and Mike Mansfield will no doubt be smiling down (or up) at their final victory.
It won't be long, now. Motus in fine velocior.
I always believed the Supreme Court was the last great hope, but Obama Care taught me differently. And since? Nothing but more proof it is primarily just another Democrat branch of government. So this is hardly a surprise. The court will only act on the latest Democrat narrative.
Can't take the risk on riots doncha know.
Conservative court indeed, not one even commented on why not in spite of clear evidence this was a lynching court. Oh I know there was probably a misspelled word to two in their appeal, have to be perfect after all, can't have justice unless you clear all the hurdles. Oh and it doesn't hurt if you are filthy rich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.